Monotheism in Europe = Inevitable?

Is monotheism inevitable in Europe?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 8.1%
  • No

    Votes: 158 91.9%

  • Total voters
    172
In Islam, they are also present - for example, the fall of Iblis and Adam.
No, Muslims do not believe in original sin. Adam was forgiven by God, and sins aren't hereditary anyways.

Then Adam received some words from his Lord and He accepted his repentance: He is the Ever Relenting, the Most Merciful. [2:37]

Satan whispered to Adam, saying, ‘Adam, shall I show you the tree of immortality and power that never decays?’ and they both ate from it. They became conscious of their nakedness and began to cover themselves with leaves from the garden. Adam disobeyed his Lord and was led astray–later his Lord brought him close, accepted his repentance, and guided him. [20:120–122]

That no soul shall bear the burden of another; that man will only have what he has worked towards; that his labour will be seen and that in the end he will be repaid in full for it. [53:38–41]​
 
No, Muslims do not believe in original sin. Adam was forgiven by God, and sins aren't hereditary anyways.

Then Adam received some words from his Lord and He accepted his repentance: He is the Ever Relenting, the Most Merciful. [2:37]

Satan whispered to Adam, saying, ‘Adam, shall I show you the tree of immortality and power that never decays?’ and they both ate from it. They became conscious of their nakedness and began to cover themselves with leaves from the garden. Adam disobeyed his Lord and was led astray–later his Lord brought him close, accepted his repentance, and guided him. [20:120–122]

That no soul shall bear the burden of another; that man will only have what he has worked towards; that his labour will be seen and that in the end he will be repaid in full for it. [53:38–41]​
Uh ... everything is much more complicated and ambiguous.
Allah said, He is great and holy:“ I don't need your worship! I want to be worshiped as I desire, not as you wish. ”However, he refused to worship. And Allah said:“ Go away from here for you are stoned, and my curse is on you until the Day of Judgment ”(38: 77-78).

And Iblis said: “O my Lord, how can it be? After all, you are right, you do not cause either oppression or violence: is the reward for my worship gone?”

He said: “No, but ask Me what you desire from the affairs of the near world — reward you for your deeds, and I will give you this.”

And the first thing he asked for was leaving him before the Day of Judgment. And Allah gave it to him.

Then he said: "Give me the power over the offspring of Adam." He said, "I have given you authority."

And he said, "Let me flow in their veins, like blood flows." He said, "I gave you this."

And he said: “Let two children be born to each of my children, and may I see them (the children of Adam), but they will not see me, and may I come to them in any image I wish.” He said, "I gave you this."

He said: “Oh, my Lord, add to me!” He said: “I have made their breasts a homeland for you and your posterity.”

He said, “Enough, O my Lord!”

And Iblis said: “By Your greatness, I seduce from all except Your servants among them sincere” (38: 82-83); “Then I will come to them both in the front, and behind, and on the right, and on the left, and you will not find most of them grateful” (7: 17). ” (c)
From Imam Sadyk (A), that he said: “When Allah is great, He is holy, bestowed upon Iblis what he bestowed, out of strength, Adam said:“ O my Lord! You gave Iblis authority over my offspring, and you gave him flow in their veins like blood, and bestowed upon him that which he bestowed. And what about me and my descendants? ”

He said: “To you and your descendants - that for one evil deed you will receive one reward, and for one good deed - ten.”

Adam said, “Oh my Lord! Add it to me! ”He said:“ The gates of repentance will be open for you until the soul reaches the throat. ”

He said, “Oh my Lord! Add it to me! ”He said:“ I forgive, and I will not be asked. ”

He said, "It is enough for me.
" (c)

That is, if in brief, Iblis was able to tempt people unlimitedly and push them to evil if they do not turn to Allah. By the way - this is closer to Judaic roots than Christianity.
 
Maybe it was after 300 AD, but before then...

Not even with a POD 300 AD. IIRC there were about 10 per cent Christians in the Roman Empire at the time of Constantine. If Constantine had lost against one of his rivals, Christianity might very well have remained the religion of a minority.
 
As is the case for, like, 90% of 'religious wars'.

Religion is more often a justification dressing a conflict, although there are cases where religion is genuinely a contributing or major cause of a particular war.

This is true of most wars where many other causes are brought up in a conflict sometimes they are true eg German atrocities in ww2 and sometimes they are made up eg German atrocities ww1.

In Islam, they are also present - for example, the fall of Iblis and Adam.

Unlike say the Catholic church, there is no absolute power in most churches so one cannot say with other churches 100%. However I can say that few Mulisms accept the concept of inherited sin. In fact, many non-Catholic Christians do not either although most of these do accept the concept of ancestral sin.


Not even with a POD 300 AD. IIRC there were about 10 per cent Christians in the Roman Empire at the time of Constantine. If Constantine had lost against one of his rivals, Christianity might very well have remained the religion of a minority.

Unlikely as Christianity was growing fast.

Although I think these figures should be taken with a grain of salt, what it does show is that Christians are a rapidly growing movement in Rome.

40AD.....1,000 Christians.....0.0017% of Rome's population
50 ......1,400.....................0.0023%
100 .....7,530....................0.0126%
150 .....40,496...................0.07%
200 .....217,796..................0.36%
250 .....1,171,356................1.9%
300 .....6,299,832...............10.5%
350 .....33,882,008..............56.5%

(From Stark's 'The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries')


As you can see they are increasing their numbers by about 500% every 50 years. I am not so sure they are going to be a minority if these growth rates continued from 300 CE with or without Constantine. Even if these growth rates slow down it will probably be the biggest religion in the Roman Empire.

Putting in here of what these figures would show without Constantine

Using an S-curve

https://stats.areppim.com/calc/calc_scurve.php
the 200 and 300 figure and a Roman Empire of 60 million and then going to 400 CE

At 350 CE without Constantine, they would be 22,907,436, they would hit Constantine 350 CE figure about 20 years later at 370 CE

I get them being the majority by 366CE with 30,983,043,
By 400 CE they are 46,418,906 well and truly the majority. Once they hit these figures the Emperors will adopt Christianity.

Probably Constantine speeded up the process by 20 years.

For Christianity not to take over would require a major competitor to suddenly appear and an effective Roman persecution of Christianity, I cannot see Rome after doing 300 doing either.
 
Unlike say the Catholic church, there is no absolute power in most churches so one cannot say with other churches 100%. However I can say that few Mulisms accept the concept of inherited sin. In fact, many non-Catholic Christians do not either although most of these do accept the concept of ancestral sin.
Nevertheless, the idea of "Original Sin" is accepted by the overwhelming majority of churches, and those who deny it sometimes deny the possibility of the very justification of sinfulness. In the same way as the heart of the Muslims, the idea of a treaty between Iblis and Allah about the souls of sinners is more or less common among the Moslems.
 
Nevertheless, the idea of "Original Sin" is accepted by the overwhelming majority of churches, and those who deny it sometimes deny the possibility of the very justification of sinfulness. In the same way as the heart of the Muslims, the idea of a treaty between Iblis and Allah about the souls of sinners is more or less common among the Moslems.

The Orthodox Church does not accept it and it is hardly a non-trival Christain Church, and whatever the treaty between Iblis and Allah it is not original sin.
 
There's no Original Sin in Islam because Adam and Eve were already forgiven in life.
And Muslim orthodoxy stresses the innocence of every soul at birth.
 
Could Christianity be somehow"molded" into a more accepting form or even just as a powerful philosophy akin to Confucianism? Perhaps Jesus was never crucified and just continued to travel and teach. Maybe ITTL he never claimed to be the Messiah and instead lived as a teacher and prophet. So that instead of usurping the Hellenistic religion it instead thrives as a lifestyle/moral code? I was thinking Yeshuanism had a nice ring to it.
 

Philip

Donor
Could Christianity be somehow"molded" into a more accepting form or even just as a powerful philosophy akin to Confucianism? Perhaps Jesus was never crucified and just continued to travel and teach.

Then you don't really have Christianity. Might as well just invent something altogether new.

Maybe ITTL he never claimed to be the Messiah and instead lived as a teacher and prophet. So that instead of usurping the Hellenistic religion it instead thrives as a lifestyle/moral code?

Strip out the messianic teachings and you are left with something that isn't differentiated enough from existing threads of Judaism. It probably never grows past its Jewish roots and even there is likely eclipsed by some other messianic / apocalyptic movement.

You'd be better off inventing a new teacher, perhaps a tweaked cynic or stoic, who would be more likely to appeal to the Hellenic and Roman worlds.
 
Monotheism, assuming rome goes roughly down the same route as OTL is inevitable in (roman) Europe by the late roman period. It is not inevitable anywhere if you change things early enough, and there is no guarantee that monotheistic religions would spread into northern Europe. It was the missionary nature of Christianity that made it spread so much. If another monotheistic mystery cult took over the roman empire, it could be less into spreading (Judaism (IK it's not a mystery cult, but it is monotheistic), Mithraism, and to some extend Zoroastrianism were not really expansionist from what I know. If you convert, you convert, but there wasn't much of this spreading by any means necessary stuff). Without Christianity, there's no religion that is so obsessed with growth, so northern and eastern Europe can go in all sorts of directions. If you anyone says "if Christianity didn't spread, Islam would" they're hella wrong. Christianity's influence on islam is unmistakable. Even if in such a scenario Islam did exist, it would likely also be less expansionist (this last bit wasn't so much for the OP as for people thinking of responding, though I assume they would also at least this much about major religions if they're replying to this thread)

[edit: Some kind of dualism is also a possibility, so I guess Monotheism is never inevitable]
What about Rome though?
 
Is monotheism inevitable in Europe? I made a thread about a pagan Europe and some responses included that if Christianity didn’t exist, another monotheistic mystery cult will eventually take over. How likely is this? Is there a chance polytheism could remain?
There are monotheists (Hindu format), and then there are Monotheists (Abrahamic format.

Monotheism of some sort is probably inevitable in Europe. But, Abrahamic monotheism as the completely dominate religion was probably not inevitable.

I think indigenous paganism could have competed had it become trans ethnic and developed the Hindu concept of "one truth, expressed in many different ways". The one truth would allow for local avatars, demigods and gods as different manifestations of the one God. The individual believer could then pick whether he or she wanted to have a polytheistic orientation ( separate gods are emphasized), or a more monotheistic orientation in which the supreme God has the focus.

In either case, Euro hinduized pagans would need:

- A canon. Better yet, they need an academic Canon for weighty type sermons and a "street canon" of easily memorizable John 3:16 or "No God by Allah and Muhammad is his prophet" type verses. The canon would need to be trans ethnic.

- A religious genius to jump start the counter reformation (such an individual is preferable, but not truly needed). In the absence of a singular genius, a team might be able to pull it off. Maybe a conference of pro pagan shamans, writers, philosophers etc.?

- A team of missionaries with the talents, dedication and confidence to take on Christian missionaries head to head. Such a team would need to be world class as early Christian missionaries had copious quantities of talent, dedication and belief.

- Breathing Space. Abrahamic Christianity was unabashedly trans ethnic, missionary oriented and had a highly competitive academic and street canon allowing missionaries to tailor the message to the sophistication of the audience. Euro hinduized pagans would need some breathing time to assemble a competing team. Maybe something delays the official acceptance of Christianity by the Roman Empire? Even with the breathing time, contact with Hinduism would help alot as canons cannot be created over night.
 
Last edited:
What about Rome though?

Rome could have adopted Manicheism or Zoroastrianism (though of Persian origin, they were popular in Rome) with Christianity existing as a minority religion. Both of these are dualist religions. They could also reform their own polytheistic beliefs to fit with the new situation in the empire (like India & Japan did with Hinduism & shinto), they could simplify it into some sort of "trialism" with Zeus, Poseidon, & Hades as the only gods or "aspects" of one god (religious simplification was common in the "axial age" when most major modern religions formed or spread along with many religions that follow similar trends but did not survive as major forces). Hell, it's even possible though quite unlikely, with the right change that the Romans adopt some form of Buddhism due to its similarity to stoicism, the prevailing philosophy in Rome.

However, if the only change was that Christianity does not become dominant for whatever reason, there are a few other monotheistic religions that are more likely to prevail than the dualists or any sort of reformed pagans.
 
Ok, so we know that monotheism is by no means inevitable in Northren/Eastren Europe, but what about the Mediterranean (Roman empire)? Do the Greco-Roman gods have any chances of surviving, or are mystery cults inevitable?
 
Ok, so we know that monotheism is by no means inevitable in Northren/Eastren Europe, but what about the Mediterranean (Roman empire)? Do the Greco-Roman gods have any chances of surviving, or are mystery cults inevitable?
Mystery cults date back well before Christianity, and don't seem to have been monotheistic. Pagan rulers were quite willing to tolerate most of them (the crackdowns on the Bacchic Mysteries seem to have been more about public order than religion) because their members still participated in the general public religion of their cities. Mystery cults acted as an addition to pagan beliefs, not a replacement or competitor, much like philosophical schools did.
 

Marc

Donor
Generally speaking this thread's question goes against the a priori assumption of this website: that history isn't deterministic but mutable - granting that there are various degrees of probability and plausibility.
Although, but not surprising given our current epoch, there is a sort of accepted bit of "soft" historical determinism when it comes the rise of modern science and technology - the once it gets going, it's basically unstoppable with allowances for some stuttering on the way.
Now, there is another way to look at alternate history when it comes to social movements such as the success or failure of a particular religion(s) - how well does competing models best fit the needs and demands of a society at that point in time?
I would obviously suggest that for religion, the core demand is resolving the issue of death; fears, concerns, wonder. The faith that offers what the public chooses to believe is the best answers, wins.
 
Last edited:
The thread's question is interesting indeed, I have to agree that Monotheism isn't necessarily inevitable. However, I would like to add that if Buddhism ever took hold in Europe, I could see the Roman pantheon being relegated to the role of the devas in Mahayana Buddhism, i.e merely just beings on a higher plane of existence who have flaws and are a part of the cycle of reincarnation. Ritual worship of the Roman Pantheon would continue as an important cultural and social institution with varying degrees of actual belief in the gods. To some, the existence of the gods might be irrelevant and enlightenment might be more important to them. Nevertheless, most people would continue to value the Roman gods as directly relevant to their lives. After all, Buddhism doesn't necessarily disrupt Pax Deorum.

Ultimately, it is hard to determine what the theological developments would be in a world without the birth of Christianity. I would assume that Monotheism would become popular somewhere and at some time, but it's inevitability in Europe isn't guaranteed.
 
Last edited:
Mystery cults date back well before Christianity, and don't seem to have been monotheistic. Pagan rulers were quite willing to tolerate most of them (the crackdowns on the Bacchic Mysteries seem to have been more about public order than religion) because their members still participated in the general public religion of their cities. Mystery cults acted as an addition to pagan beliefs, not a replacement or competitor, much like philosophical schools did.
I do agree with you, but wasn’t Manichaeism a rival to Christianity though to replace classical paganism?
 
Top